Skip to main content
Glama

delete_resource

Remove a specific resource by ID and type from the APISIX-MCP server, supporting routes, services, upstreams, and other configurations.

Instructions

Delete a resource by ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesresource id
typeYesresource type

Implementation Reference

  • The inline handler function for the 'delete_resource' tool, which performs a DELETE request to the admin API for the specified resource type and ID.
    server.tool("delete_resource", "Delete a resource by ID", DeleteResourceSchema.shape, async (args) => {
      return await makeAdminAPIRequest(`/${args.type}/${args.id}`, "DELETE");
    });
  • Zod schema for validating the input arguments of the 'delete_resource' tool, requiring 'id' (string) and 'type' (resource type enum).
    export const DeleteResourceSchema = z.object({
      id: z.string().describe("resource id"),
      type: ResourceTypeSchema.describe("resource type"),
    });
  • Registration of the 'delete_resource' tool on the MCP server, including description, input schema, and handler.
    server.tool("delete_resource", "Delete a resource by ID", DeleteResourceSchema.shape, async (args) => {
      return await makeAdminAPIRequest(`/${args.type}/${args.id}`, "DELETE");
    });
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' clearly indicates a destructive operation, the description lacks crucial details: it doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether there are confirmation prompts, or what happens to dependent resources. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is maximally concise - a single sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and gets straight to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical context like deletion consequences, error conditions, return values, or how this tool relates to other delete operations in the system. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects of this potentially dangerous operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. This meets the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target ('a resource by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other delete operations in the sibling list (delete_credential, delete_plugin_metadata, delete_secret), which all follow similar patterns but target different resource types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'delete_credential' and 'delete_secret' available, there's no indication of how this general 'delete_resource' differs from those more specific delete operations or when one should be preferred over the other.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/api7/apisix-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server